C
CWBetts
Guest
He is probably referring to the idiotic anti-Catholic screed Trail of Blood
- Status
J
jmcrae
Guest
As far as I know, the Catholic Church has the only historical records that exist at all for that time period. If those records aren’t correct, then there’s actually no way to know what happened during those years, and making something up to fit your own preconceptions won’t actually help.
D
Dokimas
Guest
You’re so correct.
A
aquabatix
Guest
Man, that was such a cop-out. Instead of being sarcastic and giving up, why don’t you just provide the documentation you put such faith in. We are all waiting… If not, I guess you were making it all up the whole time?
D
Dokimas
Guest
Cop-out, maybe. However, I believe I asked a question and with every catholic I saw responding to it, they would not directly answer the question (and for good reason, I might add).
D
Dokimas
Guest
If your referring to me, I’ve never heard of ‘Trail of Blood’ so you’re incorrect.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
The Church was NOT STARTED BY CONS TAIN he was not even a christian and was baptist on his death bed,read your history
A
aquabatix
Guest
Regardless of other posters not answering your question, everyone else (readers and posters) are waiting for ANY of this evidence you put such stock in. So, PLEASE, give it to us. Since this thread is basically done, if you still refuse, we will all assume you don’t have it.
D
Dokimas
Guest
The following is from The Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm
“Constantine can rightfully claim the title of Great, for he turned the history of the world into a new course and made Christianity, which until then had suffered bloody persecution, the religion of the State. It is true that the deeper reasons for this change are to be found in the religious movement of the time, but these reasons were hardly imperative, as the Christians formed only a small portion of the population, being a fifth part in the West and the half of the population in a large section of the East. Constantine’s decision depended less on general conditions than on a personal act; his personality, therefore, deserves careful consideration.”
D
Dokimas
Guest
And if I produce it, will you assume some of the history you held dear is in error?
D
Dokimas
Guest
From history-world.org/a_history_of_the_catholic_church.htm
“Alongside this apostolic argument for Roman primacy–and often interwoven with it-- Rome was honored because of its position as the capital of the Roman Empire : the church in the prime city ought to be prime among the churches. As the capital Rome drew visitors or tourists or pilgrims from everywhere and eventually became, for church no less than for state, what Jerusalem had originally been called, “the church from which every church took its start, the mother city [metropolis] of the citizens of the new covenant.” Curiously, the transfer of the capital of the Roman Empire from Rome to Constantinople by the newly converted emperor Constantine in 330, which weakened Rome’s civil authority, served only to strengthen its spiritual authority: the title “supreme priest [pontifex maximus],” which had been the prerogative of the emperor, now devolved upon the pope. The transfer of the capital also occasioned a dispute between Rome (“Old Rome”) and Constantinople (“New Rome”) over whether the new capital, as capital, should be entitled to a commensurate ecclesiastical preeminence alongside the see of Peter. The second ecumenical council of the church (at Constantinople in 381) and the fourth (at Chalcedon in 451) both legislated such a position for the see of Constantinople , but Rome refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of that prerogative.”
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
If we ask you a question, will you say yes?
D
Dokimas
Guest
As I said, you avoid my question for a good reason.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Why should we answere your questions when all you do is evade?As I said, you avoid my question for a good reason.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
No one has avoided your question. You ask for a definite, without even giving someone an opportunity to view the ‘sources’ you ‘say’ you have to provide. We’ve shown you evidence, with explanations and yet you didn’t admit any errors of your view.As I said, you avoid my question for a good reason.
We’ve been through this before and I can’t believe you’re still playing this ‘unknown’ evidence. If there was conclusive evidence, you, and every other person with a desire to prove Cathoicism wrong, would be broadcasting it through every avenue available. Instead we see this ‘coy’ little game. Must not have a lot of confidence in this ‘shattering’ evidence is all I can say.
“Mommy, if I ask you a question, will you promise to say yes?”
A
aquabatix
Guest
I will read it openly and honestly. This is the LAST time I will ask, please post it.
C
CWBetts
Guest
we cannot be more clear. provide your source and stop playing games.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Why don’t you start with the links I posted to Bill on this thread.
You say you will read it openly and honestly which must mean if it is accurate, you’ll change your opinion about the history present by your church.?.? I’m NOT looking for anyone to leave their church. I’ve been to many a catholic mass and been blessed. I’m just hoping for real openness.- Status